As tipsters and commenters have been reporting, Marine Corps Times, here, is running a story that says the prosecutor that oversaw the NCIS raid of Marine Corps defense offices at Camp Pendleton was removed from his job (prior coverage here and here). It also notes that at least one and possibly other Marine Corps’ trial judges ruled that the “search on defense offices, instigated and overseen by the prosecution, constituted apparent unlawful command influence . . . .” The story includes pictures of the defense counsel office raid at Camp Pendleton and this piece of information as well:
The attorneys prosecuting on behalf of the U.S. government called for the May 2 search with the intent of unearthing a cell phone containing evidence in the case of Marine Sgt. Rigo Betancourt, accused of drug-related crimes. The defense team on the case provided text messages from the phone to prosecuting attorneys, but refused to turn over the phone itself without a judicial order. The prosecutors then obtained the equivalent of a search warrant from Col. Tracy King, then-commander of Combat Logistics Regiment 15 and the designated area commander. In the ensuing two-and-a-half-hour armed search, investigators unearthed the phone in question within minutes, but continued to scour the remaining office spaces, where material for many other active cases was kept.
The story alerts us that Marine Corps trial judge Lt. Col. Chris Thielemann also recently issued a veiled reprimand of defense counsel for their response to the raid:
Thielemann’s ruling in the Miramontes case also contained a veiled reprimand for senior Marine defense attorney Lt. Col. Clay Plummer, who denounced the office search to The Associated Press shortly after it took place, calling it “unacceptable” and “crazy.” The judge recommended that a decision be made on whether Plummer’s comments violated a rule prohibiting “extra-tribunal statements,” and said a ruling on the ethical propriety of any of the defense attorneys’ actions should be made by the court’s Rules Counsel or the judge presiding over the Betancourt case.
I’ve read the JAG Corps’ PR Instruction and I would say Judge Thielemann is unnecessarily recommending a referral to Rules Counsel. With regard to statements in response to information in the public domain through the actions of others:
Notwithstanding paragraphs a and b(l) through (7), a covered attorney may make a statement that a reasonable covered attorney would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the covered attorney or the attorney’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
JAGINST 5803.1D, Rule 3.6(d). Not knowing all the facts, in fact knowing only a tiny sliver of them, I can’t say there was or was not a violation. But, particularly in light of the UCI ruling(s), what defense counsel seemed to be doing was attempting to mitigate the effects of the publicity about the raid. Prior coverage of the ABA’s statement on the raid, and attorney-client privilege issues, here.